In the 2010 version of the Japan Society of Hepatology (JSH) consensus-based treatment algorithm for the management of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) failure/refractoriness was defined assuming the use of superselective lipiodol TACE, which has been widely used worldwide and particularly in Japan, and areas with lipiodol deposition were considered to be necrotic. However, this concept is not well accepted internationally. Furthermore, following the approval of microspheres, an embolic material that does not use lipiodol, in February 2014 in Japan, the phrase ‘lipiodol deposition' needed to be changed to ‘necrotic lesion or viable lesion'. Accordingly, the respective section in the JSH guidelines was revised to define TACE failure as an insufficient response after ≥2 consecutive TACE procedures that is evident on response evaluation computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging after 1-3 months, even after chemotherapeutic agents have been changed and/or the feeding artery has been reanalyzed. In addition, the appearance of a higher number of lesions in the liver than that recorded at the previous TACE procedure (other than the nodule being treated) was added to the definition of TACE failure/refractoriness. Following the discussion of other issues concerning the continuous elevation of tumor markers, vascular invasion, and extrahepatic spread, descriptions similar to those in the previous version were approved. The revision of these TACE failure definitions was approved by over 85% of HCC experts. © 2014 S. Karger AG, Basel

Keywords:
Transarterial chemoembolization, Hepatocellular carcinoma, Criteria of transarterial chemoembolization failure
1.
Lencioni R: Chemoembolization in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Liver Cancer 2012;1:41-50.
2.
Minami Y, Yagyu Y, Murakami T, et al: Tracking navigation imaging of transcatheter arterial chemoembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma using three-dimensional cone-beam CT angiography. Liver Cancer 2014;3:53-61.
3.
Raoul JL, Gilabert M, Piana G: How to define transarterial chemoembolization failure or refractoriness: a European perspective. Liver Cancer 2014;3:119-124.
4.
Kudo M, Izumi N, Kokudo N, et al: Management of hepatocellular carcinoma in Japan: Consensus-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines proposed by the Japan Society of Hepatology (JSH) 2010 updated version. Dig Dis 2011;29:339-364.
5.
Park JW, Amarapurkar D, Chao Y, et al: Consensus recommendations and review by an International Expert Panel on Interventions in Hepatocellular Carcinoma (EPOIHCC). Liver Int 2013;33:327-337.
6.
Sieghart W, Hucke F, Pinter M, et al: The ART of decision making: retreatment with transarterial chemoembolization in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatology 2013;57:2261-2273.
7.
Kudo M, Arizumi T, Ueshima K: Assessment for retreatment (ART) score for repeated transarterial chemoembolization in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatology 2014;59:2424-2425.
8.
Kadalayil L, Benini R, Pallan L, et al: A simple prognostic scoring system for patients receiving transarterial embolisation for hepatocellular cancer. Ann Oncol 2013;24:2565-2570.
9.
Kudo M: Japan's successful model of nationwide hepatocellular carcinoma surveillance highlighting the urgent need for global surveillance. Liver Cancer 2012;1:141-143.
10.
Kim DY, Han KH: Epidemiology and surveillance of hepatocellular carcinoma. Liver Cancer 2012;1:2-14.
11.
Kudo M, Matsui O, Izumi N, et al: JSH consensus-based clinical practice guideline for the management of hepatocellular carcinoma: 2014 update by the Liver Cancer Study Group of Japan. Liver Cancer 2014;3:458-468.
12.
Yamakado K, Miyayama S, Hirota S, et al: Subgrouping of intermediate-stage (BCLC stage B) hepatocellular carcinoma based on tumor number and size and Child-Pugh grade correlated with prognosis after transarterial chemoembolization. Jpn J Radiol 2014;32:260-265.
13.
Kudo M: Treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma with emphasis on hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy and molecular targeted therapy. Liver Cancer 2012;1:62-70.
© 2014 S. Karger AG, Basel
2014
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.